Kalp Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 With the defeat of Hillary Clinton, one thing has become quite coherent that Americans are not yet prepared to offer the highest post to women. However, they call themselves as one of the most liberal countries of the world! They also show that they are the only country, which is fighting for the cause of women and their rights and insisting other countries, especially Arab world to promote women and offer them high post. What do you think? I liked very much the views of an expert....you can also read his views Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 With the defeat of Hillary Clinton, one thing has become quite coherent that Americans are not yet prepared to offer the highest post to women. However, they call themselves as one of the most liberal countries of the world! They also show that they are the only country, which is fighting for the cause of women and their rights and insisting other countries, especially Arab world to promote women and offer them high post. What do you think? I liked very much the views of an expert....you can also read his views One of the reasons for not giving the Canadian Women the vote for so long was that they were very childish and did not have the brains to evaluate and vote. Funny in the high school reading assesments recently released the boys scored 80% and the girls 89% HMMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 With the defeat of Hillary Clinton, one thing has become quite coherent that Americans are not yet prepared to offer the highest post to women. However, they call themselves as one of the most liberal countries of the world! They also show that they are the only country, which is fighting for the cause of women and their rights and insisting other countries, especially Arab world to promote women and offer them high post. What do you think? I liked very much the views of an expert....you can also read his views And if Hillary had of won, you would have said that same about black people not being offered te post. ho hum, how predictable. And you are seriously comparing the plight of women in Arab countries to that of women in the USA? Do you think that comparison is valid? Do you think that may make you look like an idiot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 One of the reasons for not giving the Canadian Women the vote for so long was that they were very childish and did not have the brains to evaluate and vote. Funny in the high school reading assesments recently released the boys scored 80% and the girls 89% HMMM You, my dear, would be an example of what they would have used to not grant women the right to vote - although it has nothing to do with you being a woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 One of the reasons for not giving the Canadian Women the vote for so long was that they were very childish and did not have the brains to evaluate and vote. Funny in the high school reading assesments recently released the boys scored 80% and the girls 89% HMMM Anybody who knows anything about the history of war could not possibly say that women were any more childish than men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 And if Hillary had of won, you would have said that same about black people not being offered te post. ho hum, how predictable. And you are seriously comparing the plight of women in Arab countries to that of women in the USA? Do you think that comparison is valid? Do you think that may make you look like an idiot? And of course the same thing was said about Romney, "Do Americans not want a Mormon president?". And with respect to Richardson and Hispanics too. The race between Clinton and Obama was very close and could easily have gone the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 If you are referring to Hillary Clinton, I don't believe she lost because she is a woman. She lost because she is an ambitious, selfish, phony person who would do or say anything to get herself elected. Of course, there are probably PLENTY of capable and deserving women who would make excellent Presidents...just not Hillary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 If you are referring to Hillary Clinton, I don't believe she lost because she is a woman. She lost because she is an ambitious, selfish, phony person who would do or say anything to get herself elected. Of course, there are probably PLENTY of capable and deserving women who would make excellent Presidents...just not Hillary. Clinton made a couple of serious mistakes that I think made the difference. The Republicans had run a pretty much high road primary with both Romney and McCain eschewing personal attacks. Obama was following the same policy and it appeared as though a new style of politiics was emerging. When Clinton came along with her hobnail boots and her personal attacks on Obama, people just saw this as more of the same old Washington style politics as usual. The second of course were the comments by both Clinton and her husband that tried to paint Obama as just another black politician, which was seen as racist. To be sure Omama had his own mistakes. The 'disenchanted blue collar Americans with guns' thing cost him Ohio. The crazy religious leader could have hurt him, but Americans are used to crackpot preachers with whacko agendas so I think Obama helped himself a lot when he disowned the guy. I don't think gender hurt Clinton any more than race hurt Obama. I think this may have been one of American democracy's finer hours when equality and democracy for all has come to the fore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 If you are referring to Hillary Clinton, I don't believe she lost because she is a woman. She lost because she is an ambitious, selfish, phony person who would do or say anything to get herself elected. Of course, there are probably PLENTY of capable and deserving women who would make excellent Presidents...just not Hillary. +1!+1! Finally someone spoke the obvious! I was beginning to think that no one in this thread had any shred of logical thinking at all! You can't plot a curve from only one point of data. That is to say, only one instance doesn't prove anything. Hillary was the first female candidate. All that we have seen is that the American registered Democrats like Obama better than her! The idea that she was rejected for being a woman implies that simply being a woman should have been enough reason to choose her! And that is not logical at all. It's mere crap and unworthy of debate. When Hillary attended the ceremonies for the emergency workers who died in the Twin Towers disaster, the police, fire and other rescue crews booed her when she took the microphone and turned their backs on her. They knew a phony exploiting their tragedy for a photo-op when they saw one. The boos went out on live feed TV but subsequently news video clips were doctored with crowd noise to cover it up. Perhaps all those rescue workers were Republican woman haters...NOT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 With the defeat of Hillary Clinton, one thing has become quite coherent that Americans are not yet prepared to offer the highest post to women. However, they call themselves as one of the most liberal countries of the world! They also show that they are the only country, which is fighting for the cause of women and their rights and insisting other countries, especially Arab world to promote women and offer them high post. What do you think? I liked very much the views of an expert....you can also read his views What about the defeat of John Edwards Romney? Huckabee? Richardson? Ron Paul? Clinton wasn't the only potential candidate defeated. In fact, she got further than any of the other potential candidates I mentioned. As for calling ourselves one of the most "liberal" countries in the world-- don't know where you are getting that from. Seems to me we're known for being on the conservative side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 When Hillary attended the ceremonies for the emergency workers who died in the Twin Towers disaster, the police, fire and other rescue crews booed her when she took the microphone and turned their backs on her. They knew a phony exploiting their tragedy for a photo-op when they saw one. The boos went out on live feed TV but subsequently news video clips were doctored with crowd noise to cover it up.Perhaps all those rescue workers were Republican woman haters...NOT! No, but they blamed Bill Clinton for what happened. Hillary Clinton was a New York Senator at the time and she worked to get funding for 9/11 victims. Would they have booed any other Senator from New York, no matter what kind of politician they were? I think they were booing Bill Clinton by Proxy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 As for calling ourselves one of the most "liberal" countries in the world-- don't know where you are getting that from. Seems to me we're known for being on the conservative side. Probably within the top 10.... Think about it... Of the top of my head and In in no particular order... Canada Australia New Zealand UK France Germany Holland Denmark USA The bottom 10.... North Korea Saudi Arabia China Iran Yemen Somalia Pakistan Afghanistan Iraq Nepal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) ...You can't plot a curve from only one point of data. That is to say, only one instance doesn't prove anything. Hillary was the first female candidate. All that we have seen is that the American registered Democrats like Obama better than her! True, but Hillary wasn't the first at anything. Democrat Shirley Chisolm and Republican Barbara Dole preceeded her, among others. The fact is that Senator Clinton would be an unknown were it not for her husband's presidency, and in the end, it is also one of the reasons she lost. Senator Obama did not use anyone's coat tails, and represents a big departure from the caustic, race bating "challengers" of the past (e.g. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). We also know that Colin Powell would have been well received as a candidate on either end of a ticket. Obama has a rough course ahead, hoping that past associations in Chicago don't pull him back into the basket like a crab. Edited June 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.